RWTP: Switching Commander-in-Chief in the Middle of a War

[gulliver]

My grandmother lives in Phoenix and is a lifelong Democrat. Her friends in her (somewhat tony) retirement community are basically all Republican. She told me that the Republican codgers often say it is a bad idea to "change the Commander-in-Chief in wartime."

I have heard and read this argument in numerous other places since, and I am starting to get fed up with it. It is yet another empty right wing talking point. Where did all of this half-witted mental poison come from?

Let me get this straight. If we are at war, then we should not change CiC? So it follows that presidential elections should not be held in time of war. Isn't that what they are really saying?

I think we need a real Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war, not a phony former cheerleader who has brought us such miserable results in the war on terror. What happened to firing the CEO if the shareholders lose their shirts? Why shouldn't we switch from a Commander-Chief who rushed us into an unnecessary war on false premises and who now says he miscalculated? Not switching is the crazy thing to do.

This particular Commander-in-Chief (Bush) picked an unnecessary fight with Iraq, and he made a gratuitous threat against North Korea that he was not prepared to back up with force. When North Korea responded to Bush's "axis of evil" threats by refining fuel for nuclear weapons (which had ceased under Clinton), what did Bush do? Nothing! The man shot off his mouth for no reason, threatened North Korea, and when they started making a bunch of new nuclear weapons, he could do nothing but sit there and watch them do it. He is an ass and a loose cannon. He should not be Commander-in-Chief.

Help my grandmother on this. What else could she say?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Viet Nam

was the last major undeclared war we were in, and we changed from Johnson to Nixon.

The idea of not changing leaders harks back to the election of 1864, when Lincoln said it was not wise "to switch horses in midstream". But then we were fighting a Civil War, with real unrest and real casualties nearly every day. I know people were upset because 3,000 people died in the WTC and the Pentagon, but 20,000 were killed in one day at the Battle of Antietem. The threat to the nation was far more real and ominious in 1864 than it is in 2004. You can no longer use a nineteenth century analogy to justify twenty-first century policies.

[bryant69]

2. That's a good point

And of course many right wingers were all for switching to Nixon over Johnson or Humphries.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[zbdent]

13. Invalid. Johnson bowed out.

Refused to run for the 68 term.

[bryant69]

25. Not invalid.

They didn't want him to run; and if he had run, they would have dropped him.

[LiberalFighter]

3. How many of them have or want their grandkids in Iraq or any other war?

[Guava Jelly]

4. If a Commander shows incompetance he can and should

Be relieved of duty.
If you are falling off a cliff and see a branch should you grab it or stay the course??

If a mechanic is working on your car and he cant fix it do you let him finnish or get a better Mechanic??


If your gun boat is being fired at from the shore do you stay the course and indanger other boats in your unit or do you turn your boat into the problem and eliminate it ..Or do you Ignore it??

[jeff30997]

7. Good point ,GoPsUx !

[Triana]

5. We wouldn't BE in the middle of said war if...

...it weren't for the current idiot in chief. HE got us into this mess, and only someone new can get us out of it.

[jeff30997]

6. When North Korea responded to Bush's "axis of evil" threats ...

By refining fuel for nuclear weapons what did Bush do? Nothing! The man shot off his mouth for no reason". No reason? Well our little friend George is not used to people holding their ground (yes just like all the bullies).And considering the fact that North Korea have the bomb,they are not exactly a weak opponent, so Georgie boy chickened out.

[JPJones]

8. GWB fell ass-backwards in this quagmire

and John Kerry is the only one who can get us out of it.

[kentuck]

9. Since this war is going to last for 20 years or a generation ?

does that mean we have to keep the same sorry nag for the next twenty years? we can't change 4 years from now if we are at war? And they assume we will be at war. Not a logical argument.

[maine_raptor]

10. As Jon Steward said

to William Kristol:

"So you want the guy that drove us into the ditch to drive us out?"

[jeff30997]

11. Jon Stewart, i like you.

[Minimus]

12. My mother voting for first time

My mother has never voted in a presidential election. She is 66 and is voting for Kerry.

Her words: I do not follow politics and know little about the issues, but I've heard and seen enough to know that Bush is bad for the country and he has to go.

My mom has a grandson in Iraq (my nephew) and thinks Kerry will be able to get our soldiers home quicker by getting us some help. All the more reason to switch CIC.

[jimshoes]

14. So when your quarterback keeps fumbling the snap

or throwing interceptions, it's always best to leave him in just in case he might get it right sometime later. Nope, bad strategery. Time to pull the bum.

[Hobarticus]

15. So we ARE at war, then?

Then the torture of prisoners at Abu Gharib IS illegal according to the Geneva Convetion, then?

So Don Rumsfeld and anyone else who had their bloody little grubby-chubbies in this is in violation of international law, then?

[chieftain]

16. There's Some Truth To The Old Saw

that it isn't wise to change horses in mid-stream . It clearly doesn't apply to circumstances where the horse'sass-in-command lied us into an unnecessary , counterproductive adventure thousands of miles from home . That is precisely the time when you have to make a change .

[kentuck]

20. Yeah, somebody should have told Custer that....

Will it be alright to change in 4 years if we are still at war??

[krkaufman]

23. I'll change a horse in mid-stream...

... if that horse is walking me straight downriver toward a waterfall, instead of getting me across the damn river.

It's time to put *this* horse "down."

[DinahMoeHum]

17. IOW, don't change dicks in the middle of a screw. . .

right?

Hey, she should read up on the Civil War. Lincoln was displeased with the way Gen. McClellan was commanding and utilizing his Union troops, and ultimately replaced him with Ulysses S. Grant.

:evilgrin:

[Morning Dew]

24. LOL at "don't change Dicks..."

remember it well,

"Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw,
vote for Nixon, '72."

[skygazer]

18. Silly argument

There have been a number of instances in which the President changed during war (Johnson/Nixon - FDR/Truman - Lincoln/Johnson (stretching a point there but technically the war was still on and there was much to do to secure the peace) but there have also been plenty of times when the commanding general was changed or the Secretary of War (or Defense in modern times). Those changes are going to have just as much impact, if not more, than changing the CIC.

The old saw about changing horses in midstream is pointless. If my horse is drowning, you damn well betcha I'm going to change! And this pony's going down fast!

[LTR]

19. The Presidency has changed hands during war a few times

Civil War: Lincoln, Johnson

WWII: Roosevelt, Truman

Korea: Truman, Eisenhower

Vietnam: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford

BTW: The Iraq War is phony, in the sense that Bush created it as a pre-emptive attack.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. Historically, we've done it two out of four times

1812 wasn't an issue; it was over before the next election.

Same with the Mexican War.

Lincoln won re-election in 1864.

The Spanish-American War didn't even last a year.

U.S. involvement in World War 1 was a year and seven months and didn't span an election cycle.

Roosevelt won re-election in 1944.

Truman got clobbered in New Hampshire by a Democratic challenger in the primary season--largely because of the Korean War, by the way--and withdrew from the race.

The Johnson episode was essentially a repeat of 1952.

That's it: two for four.

If Junior gets us into an elective war just so he can plead that he's too essential at a time of crisis, it needs to be reminded that he MANUFACTURED THE CRISIS WITH AN UNNECESSARY WAR. Sort of like the old definition of chutzpah: the kid who's convicted of killing his parents who then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

[SpiralHawk]

22. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Meme. Get it straight

The actual, "true" (tm), and accurate Republican meme is:

"Don't switch horsemen in the middle of an Apocalypse."